Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

axl · 10-23-2007, 02:29 AM

Hi guys,
As I've been on this forum for a while now, I have come accross a lot of praise for Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Apparently outsanding zoom lens. And as I'm contemplating purchasing of a lens (my LBA is well under controll, mostly thanx to my fiance) I keep checking on things. And I came accross this:
24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO
here is the link to Sigma UK:
Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd
I would just like ask, how does it compare to above mentioned Tamron. Has anybody worked with it??? Or does anybody have it???
Thanx for replies...

**Mallee Boy** · 10-23-2007, 02:35 AM

Hi AXL,
Put your fiance on.....I think we would all like a word with her

...then you can go get your 28-75.

-spam- · 10-23-2007, 02:38 AM

I asked this question a fair while back and the general consensus was to go for the tamron over the sigma. I was told its sharper and the AF was better.

In the long run i ended up getting a sigma 24-60 2.8 for a price i couldnt walk past, but if i didnt buy that, i would have gotten the tamron.

and · 10-23-2007, 02:54 AM

The Tamron seems like a nice lens. I have seen lots of nice shots from it.
I have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and its a piece of junk, its rotting away in a drawer now. I think the 24-70 is supposed to be a bit better but it would have to be a lot better to be any good.

No doubt, get the Tamron. If you really want sigma then the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro seems good if you can get a good copy.

axl · 10-23-2007, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by -spam-

I asked this question a fair while back and the general consensus was to go for the tamron over the sigma. I was told its sharper and the AF was better.

In the long run i ended up getting a sigma 24-60 2.8 for a price i couldnt walk past, but if i didnt buy that, i would have gotten the tamron.

As far as I know 24-60 is different lens, this one goes up to 70... anyway, are you happy with the one you have? how's AF and so on?
they both cost roughly the same as Tamron 28-75 f2.8...
Do you know what's the biggest difference, except extra 10mm, or is that it?

Originally posted by and

The Tamron seems like a nice lens. I have seen lots of nice shots from it.
I have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and its a piece of junk, its rotting away in a drawer now. I think the 24-70 is supposed to be a bit better but it would have to be a lot better to be any good.

No doubt, get the Tamron. If you really want sigma then the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro seems good if you can get a good copy.

Why do you think 28-70 is that bad?
I don't want 18-50 because that would be direct replacement for DA 18-55 which I'm using for landscapes only anyway, and stopped down to f16 I can't say much bad about it...
I wanted Sigma over Tamron because it's 24mm at widest end, and it would possibly become my standard walkabout lens, plus cuopled with f2.8 throughout the zoom range, good indoor and portrait lens, I think...
thanx...

little laker · 10-23-2007, 03:58 AM

Just something to think about axl.

For less than the price of 1 new affordable Zoom you can buy 3 used manual focus primes covering most of the range.

At least in my case my image quality improved when I switched over to primes.

I know that it's a little more lens changing, but you'd be surprised how little there really is.

My #1 walk around is a 28mm f2.8, unless I'm mostly shooting close ups when it becomes a 55mm f1.8

-spam- · 10-23-2007, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by axl

anyway, are you happy with the one you have? how's AF and so on?
they both cost roughly the same as Tamron 28-75 f2.8...
Do you know what's the biggest difference, except extra 10mm, or is that it?

Its quite a bit different to its 24-70 sibling. Smaller and lighter for one which i found is nice. The smaller filter thread size is a good thing too. Its 77mm as opposed to the 82mm one on the 24-70. It means that the filters are slightly cheaper and i can use the same ones on my 10-20 as well. The hood also appears to actually prevent lens flare on the 24-60.

It looks like the copy i got is pretty sharp too, even at 2.8 its not bad and certainly very usable. The AF hunts a little in low light, but its no worse than anything else ive used.

I know it has never been a popular lens due to its somewhat odd focal length, but in a choice between it and the 24-70, id always take the 24-60.

joele · 10-23-2007, 04:04 AM

I used to own the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG macro.. I dumped it very quickly.

It wasn't terrible, it didn't have focus issues like some previous Sigma's I have owned. But at 2.8 it was rather soft throughout the range and in my opinion and the contrast was rather poor too. It just didn't impress me at all.

It was also very big and heavy, which if it was better quality wouldn't have bothered me, but considering the quality I couldn't see a point in having such a bulky lens.

P.S. The problem could have simply been with my lens, many of us know about lens QC issues, but that was my experience..

axl · 10-23-2007, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by little laker

Just something to think about axl.

For less than the price of 1 new affordable Zoom you can buy 3 used manual focus primes covering most of the range.

At least in my case my image quality improved when I switched over to primes.

I know that it's a little more lens changing, but you'd be surprised how little there really is.

My #1 walk around is a 28mm f2.8, unless I'm mostly shooting close ups when it becomes a 55mm f1.8

well, maybe over in North America you can get a lot of cheap and used MF primes, but unfortunately and sadly here in London it's bit different. All the good shops I know are stocking mostly used C&N lenses. It's quite an achievement to get one for K mount. I got lucky though, and I own Hoya HMC 135 f2.8. Fully manual, and heavy (seems to be all metal), but tad too long for my liking.
but anyway, thanx for suggestion, will think about it....

and · 10-23-2007, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by joele

I used to own the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG macro.. I dumped it very quickly.

It wasn't terrible, it didn't have focus issues like some previous Sigma's I have owned. But at 2.8 it was rather soft throughout the range and in my opinion and the contrast was rather poor too. It just didn't impress me at all.

It was also very big and heavy, which if it was better quality wouldn't have bothered me, but considering the quality I couldn't see a point in having such a bulky lens.

P.S. The problem could have simply been with my lens, many of us know about lens QC issues, but that was my experience..

I have similar feelings to joele. Its very big and heavy, but its soft wide open and I dont trust using it at f2.8 so the point of f2.8 was mostly gone (apart from brighter viewfinder). The image quality just wasnt good eanough. I have seen shots from the tamron and the sigma 18-50 that impressed me in terms of sharpness, I dont think my sigma is capable of producing that kind of quality

Peter Zack · 10-23-2007, 04:47 AM

I think with all the mixed reviews of the competing lenses the Tamron stands head and shoulders above the rest. Matched with your 18-55 you have a good combo. Wide with one and mid range zoom with the other. For me I opted for the 12-24 Sigma as a mate and love the combination. Stu is right about the primes but the Tamron is so good that you should be happy with the results.

little laker · 10-23-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by axl

well, maybe over in North America you can get a lot of cheap and used MF primes, but unfortunately and sadly here in London it's bit different. All the good shops I know are stocking mostly used C&N lenses. It's quite an achievement to get one for K mount. I got lucky though, and I own Hoya HMC 135 f2.8. Fully manual, and heavy (seems to be all metal), but tad too long for my liking.
but anyway, thanx for suggestion, will think about it....

I forgot about that axl, plus I guess that I forgot that there were some places outside of North America for a moment

However this might be something that interests you.
I found this site the other day while looking for some oddball lens in Canada

Used Pentax lenses UK
I bookmarked it thinking that it might interest someone over there.

edit, I see that most but not all of those lenses are screwmount. They work nicely with the adapter, but if you don't have 1 you might want to try finding one first.
They show a listing for them.

blwnhr · 10-23-2007, 08:06 PM

The guy I always deal with at my local camera store has the Nikon mount Sigma 24.70 2.8 and he says it is fantastic. I was considering buying this lens as I can get Sigma a significant amount cheaper than any other brand.

axl · 10-24-2007, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by little laker

I forgot about that axl, plus I guess that I forgot that there were some places outside of North America for a moment

However this might be something that interests you.
I found this site the other day while looking for some oddball lens in Canada

Used Pentax lenses UK
I bookmarked it thinking that it might interest someone over there.

edit, I see that most but not all of those lenses are screwmount. They work nicely with the adapter, but if you don't have 1 you might want to try finding one first.
They show a listing for them.

no worries Stu,
thanx for the link, sure will keep an eye on that page. Any idea how much would adapter M42 to K cost?
thanx

little laker · 10-24-2007, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by axl

Any idea how much would adapter M42 to K cost?

They listed it yesterday, but it looks like it's out of stock today

I think that it was about 12 pounds (sorry my keyboard doesn't have your pound symbol)

10-23-2007, 09:50 AM	#12
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Originally posted by axl well, maybe over in North America you can get a lot of cheap and used MF primes, but unfortunately and sadly here in London it's bit different. All the good shops I know are stocking mostly used C&N lenses. It's quite an achievement to get one for K mount. I got lucky though, and I own Hoya HMC 135 f2.8. Fully manual, and heavy (seems to be all metal), but tad too long for my liking. but anyway, thanx for suggestion, will think about it.... I forgot about that axl, plus I guess that I forgot that there were some places outside of North America for a moment However this might be something that interests you. I found this site the other day while looking for some oddball lens in Canada Used Pentax lenses UK I bookmarked it thinking that it might interest someone over there. edit, I see that most but not all of those lenses are screwmount. They work nicely with the adapter, but if you don't have 1 you might want to try finding one first. They show a listing for them. Last edited by little laker; 10-23-2007 at 10:05 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 (K mount) and Tamron Adaptall 24mm F2.5 with Tamron P/K ada	pxpaulx	Sold Items	4	08-27-2010 08:47 PM
Tamron 18-250 vs Sigma/Tamron 70-300 ?	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-04-2007 07:12 PM

10-23-2007, 02:29 AM	#1
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Sigma or Tamron? Hi guys, As I've been on this forum for a while now, I have come accross a lot of praise for Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Apparently outsanding zoom lens. And as I'm contemplating purchasing of a lens (my LBA is well under controll, mostly thanx to my fiance) I keep checking on things. And I came accross this: 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO here is the link to Sigma UK: Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd I would just like ask, how does it compare to above mentioned Tamron. Has anybody worked with it??? Or does anybody have it??? Thanx for replies...

10-23-2007, 02:35 AM	#2
Mallee Boy Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,904	Hi AXL, Put your fiance on.....I think we would all like a word with her ...then you can go get your 28-75.

10-23-2007, 02:38 AM	#3
-spam- Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 354	I asked this question a fair while back and the general consensus was to go for the tamron over the sigma. I was told its sharper and the AF was better. In the long run i ended up getting a sigma 24-60 2.8 for a price i couldnt walk past, but if i didnt buy that, i would have gotten the tamron.

10-23-2007, 02:54 AM	#4
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	The Tamron seems like a nice lens. I have seen lots of nice shots from it. I have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and its a piece of junk, its rotting away in a drawer now. I think the 24-70 is supposed to be a bit better but it would have to be a lot better to be any good. No doubt, get the Tamron. If you really want sigma then the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro seems good if you can get a good copy.

10-23-2007, 03:30 AM	#5
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by -spam- I asked this question a fair while back and the general consensus was to go for the tamron over the sigma. I was told its sharper and the AF was better. In the long run i ended up getting a sigma 24-60 2.8 for a price i couldnt walk past, but if i didnt buy that, i would have gotten the tamron. As far as I know 24-60 is different lens, this one goes up to 70... anyway, are you happy with the one you have? how's AF and so on? they both cost roughly the same as Tamron 28-75 f2.8... Do you know what's the biggest difference, except extra 10mm, or is that it? Originally posted by and The Tamron seems like a nice lens. I have seen lots of nice shots from it. I have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and its a piece of junk, its rotting away in a drawer now. I think the 24-70 is supposed to be a bit better but it would have to be a lot better to be any good. No doubt, get the Tamron. If you really want sigma then the sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro seems good if you can get a good copy. Why do you think 28-70 is that bad? I don't want 18-50 because that would be direct replacement for DA 18-55 which I'm using for landscapes only anyway, and stopped down to f16 I can't say much bad about it... I wanted Sigma over Tamron because it's 24mm at widest end, and it would possibly become my standard walkabout lens, plus cuopled with f2.8 throughout the zoom range, good indoor and portrait lens, I think... thanx...

10-23-2007, 03:58 AM	#6
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Just something to think about axl. For less than the price of 1 new affordable Zoom you can buy 3 used manual focus primes covering most of the range. At least in my case my image quality improved when I switched over to primes. I know that it's a little more lens changing, but you'd be surprised how little there really is. My #1 walk around is a 28mm f2.8, unless I'm mostly shooting close ups when it becomes a 55mm f1.8

10-23-2007, 03:59 AM	#7
-spam- Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 354	Originally posted by axl anyway, are you happy with the one you have? how's AF and so on? they both cost roughly the same as Tamron 28-75 f2.8... Do you know what's the biggest difference, except extra 10mm, or is that it? Its quite a bit different to its 24-70 sibling. Smaller and lighter for one which i found is nice. The smaller filter thread size is a good thing too. Its 77mm as opposed to the 82mm one on the 24-70. It means that the filters are slightly cheaper and i can use the same ones on my 10-20 as well. The hood also appears to actually prevent lens flare on the 24-60. It looks like the copy i got is pretty sharp too, even at 2.8 its not bad and certainly very usable. The AF hunts a little in low light, but its no worse than anything else ive used. I know it has never been a popular lens due to its somewhat odd focal length, but in a choice between it and the 24-70, id always take the 24-60.

10-23-2007, 04:04 AM	#8
joele Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,308	I used to own the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG macro.. I dumped it very quickly. It wasn't terrible, it didn't have focus issues like some previous Sigma's I have owned. But at 2.8 it was rather soft throughout the range and in my opinion and the contrast was rather poor too. It just didn't impress me at all. It was also very big and heavy, which if it was better quality wouldn't have bothered me, but considering the quality I couldn't see a point in having such a bulky lens. P.S. The problem could have simply been with my lens, many of us know about lens QC issues, but that was my experience..

10-23-2007, 04:08 AM	#9
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by little laker Just something to think about axl. For less than the price of 1 new affordable Zoom you can buy 3 used manual focus primes covering most of the range. At least in my case my image quality improved when I switched over to primes. I know that it's a little more lens changing, but you'd be surprised how little there really is. My #1 walk around is a 28mm f2.8, unless I'm mostly shooting close ups when it becomes a 55mm f1.8 well, maybe over in North America you can get a lot of cheap and used MF primes, but unfortunately and sadly here in London it's bit different. All the good shops I know are stocking mostly used C&N lenses. It's quite an achievement to get one for K mount. I got lucky though, and I own Hoya HMC 135 f2.8. Fully manual, and heavy (seems to be all metal), but tad too long for my liking. but anyway, thanx for suggestion, will think about it....

10-23-2007, 04:33 AM	#10
and Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,476	Originally posted by joele I used to own the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG macro.. I dumped it very quickly. It wasn't terrible, it didn't have focus issues like some previous Sigma's I have owned. But at 2.8 it was rather soft throughout the range and in my opinion and the contrast was rather poor too. It just didn't impress me at all. It was also very big and heavy, which if it was better quality wouldn't have bothered me, but considering the quality I couldn't see a point in having such a bulky lens. P.S. The problem could have simply been with my lens, many of us know about lens QC issues, but that was my experience.. I have similar feelings to joele. Its very big and heavy, but its soft wide open and I dont trust using it at f2.8 so the point of f2.8 was mostly gone (apart from brighter viewfinder). The image quality just wasnt good eanough. I have seen shots from the tamron and the sigma 18-50 that impressed me in terms of sharpness, I dont think my sigma is capable of producing that kind of quality

10-23-2007, 04:47 AM	#11
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	I think with all the mixed reviews of the competing lenses the Tamron stands head and shoulders above the rest. Matched with your 18-55 you have a good combo. Wide with one and mid range zoom with the other. For me I opted for the 12-24 Sigma as a mate and love the combination. Stu is right about the primes but the Tamron is so good that you should be happy with the results.

10-23-2007, 08:06 PM	#13
blwnhr Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 663	The guy I always deal with at my local camera store has the Nikon mount Sigma 24.70 2.8 and he says it is fantastic. I was considering buying this lens as I can get Sigma a significant amount cheaper than any other brand.

10-24-2007, 04:35 AM	#14
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183 Original Poster	Originally posted by little laker I forgot about that axl, plus I guess that I forgot that there were some places outside of North America for a moment However this might be something that interests you. I found this site the other day while looking for some oddball lens in Canada Used Pentax lenses UK I bookmarked it thinking that it might interest someone over there. edit, I see that most but not all of those lenses are screwmount. They work nicely with the adapter, but if you don't have 1 you might want to try finding one first. They show a listing for them. no worries Stu, thanx for the link, sure will keep an eye on that page. Any idea how much would adapter M42 to K cost? thanx

10-24-2007, 09:21 AM	#15
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Originally posted by axl Any idea how much would adapter M42 to K cost? They listed it yesterday, but it looks like it's out of stock today I think that it was about 12 pounds (sorry my keyboard doesn't have your pound symbol)

Sigma or Tamron?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!